Talk:Avril Lavigne/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New Tattoos

Well, in that radio interview on Seacrest's show (May 6 – see references), Lavigne admitted to getting four new tattoos, one of which can't be said on air. Spencer Pratt (sp?) more or less confirmed the F-word tattoo on Jenner's side that purportedly matches Lavigne's. Since there is a section already detailing some of her tattoos, should these new ones be included? I'd be very careful with the sources though, since I'm not very good with gossip contributions. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I sort of do the same; I'm always unsure about where fact ends and gossip begins. In my opinion, while this isn't 100% solid, you need to think about the source. Is it reliable? Is it likely? Since I can see no reason why he would lie and since he has given strong hints and since Lavigne has been on a tattoo spree lately, I'd say it's likely. Maybe you should just word it like 'Lavigne admitted getting four tattoos.....it has been hinted at blah blah blah...it's likely that blah blah blah' etc. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Avril did an interview with "Inked" magazine, presumably about the new tattoos. That might work as a citation. However, I'm not sure if it's available online and it isn't available where I live, so unfortunately I can't confirm anything that might be written in the magazine. 68.151.125.216 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, and it's a great suggestion too, thanks. I'm hoping someone scans the interview/article online (it's probably already up on bandaids, I just haven't looked). Several tertiary sources cite the interview, but I'd love to get my hands on the actual interview first. If you get any info, feel free to add it to the article though! Especially that F-word tattoo lol – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not out until June 8. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference access dates

I recall reading somewhere here that accessdates parameters were filled out for all references, but not all of them will have this parameter. I just added a {{cite episode}} reference, for example, that won't have this accessdate feature, and it's not really needed either (so long as the template itself doesn't eventually require it). I thought I would point this out in case it comes up again in the near future. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do YouTube videos and books also need accessdates? Zylo1994 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the template has an accessdate= parameter, then it really should be included. {{YouTube}} templates are now used mainly for External Links, not for citing. The {{cite video}} template must be used for references, plus it includes a time= parameter that makes it easy to find specific information. Also, some YouTube references are actually in violation of copyright and should not be linked to by Wikipedia. I'll add this to the to-do list below. {{Cite book}} has an accessdate= parameter. I'm hoping to have the references as entirely filled out as possible, so books should include edition no. and all that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could this be used for early life?

Found this (link) and Avril says that when she was younger she was a 'tough little s***' or something. Haven't read it all the way through but I thought maybe it could be useful? Just wanted to check if its reliable enough. Thanks. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the article doesn't add anything too new. It would be better suited for The Best Damn Thing article, though, since she talks a lot about it. It's funny, the article mentions her religious upbringing, an issue I just started in a new discussion, but the article doesn't say which religion she was. Grrr. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) OK, I shall be back shortly with some comments and suggestions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done*Okay then, I always check the peripheral things before I look at the body of the article in a GA review and one thing I notice is the inconsistency in reference formatting- for example, some are formatted as YYY-MM-DD and others are formatted as DD Month YYYY while others lack retrieval dates altogether. I would suggest sticking with the latter (or the American form: Month DD, YYY if that's more commonly used in Canda) and all those lacking retrieval dates will need them. You can use {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} which will produce 27 March 2010

 Done*The lead could use a little expansion per WP:LEAD- it should summarise the main points of the article. It's probably good enough for GA, but it can't hurt, especially if you want to take the article further in future.

• The prose could do with some work, just to pick on a few bits:
  • "Lavigne's mother was the first to spot young Lavigne's talent"
  • The wording needs to be varied a bit to avoid repeated occurrences of "Lavigne"
  • "A daughter of a working-class family, Lavigne, at the age of two, began singing church songs along with her mother." (there are much better and more natural ways of phrasing that and the two facts aren't really related)
  • "During a performance with the Lennox Community Theatre, Lavigne was spotted by local folk singer Steve Medd, who invited her to contribute vocals on his song, "Touch the Sky", for his 1999 album, Quinte Spirit. She later sang on "Temple of Life" and "Two Rivers" for his follow up 2000 album, My Window to You" (that sentence is far too long)
  • Lots of sentences start with "In [year]..."
  • ""Breakaway" was later included on Clarkson's second album, Breakaway..."
  • "Lavigne had a cameo in the film Going the Distance and also..." ("and also" is one of my pet peeves)

 Done*In the final sentence above "Let Go", I suggest providing a citation for each artist or putting all of them at the end of the sentence

 Done*Since it's done roughly chronologically, it might be an idea to put years in the section headings under "music career"

 Done*Some years or dates in the "film career" section would be nice for context

 Done*Could the "publication" section be worked in somewhere else rather than given its own section since it's so short?

 Done*Try to explain the significance of "she admitted to "snagging a bite of Matt's cheeseburgers every now and again."" to someone unfamiliar with the subject

 Done*Is there a way to work those footnotes into the prose?

All in all, this is a very nice article and there are certainly no fundamental articles. It could easily be a GA if a bit of work goes into it over the next few days. Don't worry too much about the copyediting- if you fix what you can, I'll go through and give it a copyedit myself later on. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page of you need anything, I'm happy to help! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review. So just to be sure, it would be okay if I went through the article and changed all the sources without a retrieval date so that it says they were retrieved today? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. And absolutely, but make sure the source backs up the content. The point of retrieval dates is to tell people when the information was there should the web page change in future (there are websites that will show you a previous version of web pages). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried adding retrieval dates to some sources but they wouldn't show. Can you add retrieval dates to magazines, books etc? If so, how? Also can we simply delete dead links or do we need to find the information they provided from another source before they're deleted? Zylo1994 (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They all appear to have retrieval dates now. They're not required for offline sources, but they can be very useful for online sources if the link later goes dead. As for the dead links, you can use this to find them (I've set it to only show the ones you need to worry about). You should click the link to make sure it is dead. Assuming it is, check what they're being used to source and whether that information needs to stay. If it does, the best thing to do is to try and find another source. If the information is important but you can't verify it elsewhere, there are ways you can find it, but I'd have to consult someone more knowledgeable on it than myself! How's it coming on? Do you need anything else from me? I'm more than happy to help if you do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks later, not much of anything has been done. Perhaps this should be failed now? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up

OK, this has been open for quite a while, so I'd quite like to get it closed by the end of the week if possible. All the outstanding issues are documented above and on the main talk page. Once they're fixed, I'll take another look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy with my own GA and articles, but I may as well say that I have one more section of AL (the last section) to whip into shape, plus I think her Inked interview needs to be thrown into the tattoos section (if and when I can find a scan of it), and then I've tagged one or more references as unreliable or other issues. For the record, I think the GA nom was a bit premature, but the article is definitely looking better because of it, so I appreciate your and Zylo's help and input greatly. I'm hoping you can extend the deadline just a tad longer, or at least don't judge the last section until I've been through it. I don't think this page is transcluded any more (Miszabot came through a while ago), but I now have this page on watch. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on it. As long as progress is being made, I'm happy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Work has started up again (on my end) and I realized the lead is going to need to be expanded some as well, so the article won't be ready quite yet. Thanks for your patience, HJ. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is 98% completed and ready to be reviewed again. Please note that there are several failed verification and unreliable source tags throughout, but these instances are mostly highly notable and I can find archived news sources for them later tomorrow. Also note the I re-wrote most of the lead section to summarize the entire article; every section is covered. ScottMHoward brought up the fact that this may be too detailed for the lead, and he may be right, but before I start trimming it, I will let you (et al.) decide its ultimate fate. Finally, I have not gone through the article for linking or overlinking, as this for some reason seems to require more brain power than researching and writing lol. So I thought I would leave that for later, and of course anyone else if free to dive in. Thanks once again for your patience. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links and all overlinks in the article body should be gone. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just crossed this page and I would say this article totally lacks a Musical Style section. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've just logged into my alternate account so I can do a proper review without the constant orange bar or the urge to press admin buttons! It'll take me a few minutes to look through the article, and when I'm done I'll probably have another list of minor things to be addressed. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know you guys got an orange bar! :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up review

• Right then:
  • "Early years" section- I've left you a {{fact}} tag- it may well be in one of the references but that sentence will need a citation

N Not done just yet. My reasoning: the citation shown below (currently [6]) covers the information previous to it, which in this case is three sentences. The sentence in the reference reads: "But her parents supported her singing."

Although she struggled with paying attention in school, sometimes kicked out of class for misbehaving, her parents were supportive of her singing.[citation needed] Her father bought her a microphone, a drum kit, a keyboard, several guitars, and converted their basement into a studio. When Lavigne was 14, her parents would take her to karaoke sessions.[6]

I'm not an advocate for repeated citations, and in a discussion held on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Citations_following_quotations, there was a consensus for this, as long as the information previous to the citation wasn't so great that the referenced material would be confusing to the reader or the editor. Do let me know what you think, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough- it's at the end of the next sentence, so I can live with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to do something to make "invited Antonio "L.A." Reid, head of Arista Records at the time, to hear Lavigne sing for 15 minutes at producer Peter Zizzo's Manhattan studio. Lavigne so impressed Reid, he immediately signed her " sound a bit more neutral and encyclopaedic.

Y Slightly re-written. Evidently, the "so impressed" bit was directly pulled from the reference (my bad!), so I added quotation marks. If it's still too much, I'll change it up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Likewise "Signed as a singer, Lavigne was pitched with songs written by others. She dismissed them, however, and insisted on writing music herself."

Y Removed entirely. This comes from the Chris Willman Entertainment Weekly source, but it's better suited to the Let Go (album) article, which handled it appropriately. The EW interview goes into the "how much of the music does Avril really write?" bit, but the whole debate is a tad apocryphal and I'm not sure there's enough evidence on either side for it to even hold water.

• • Can I suggest a subheader immediately underneath "music career"? It's just a suggestion, but it's a technique I employed while re-writing Lindsay Lohan and it seemed to work quite well.

Y Absolutely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Datespans would be good in the level 3 headers

Y Added. Datespans were in the article back in January 2010, but I recall sockpuppet Detty2.0 (talk · contribs) changing the dates and sub-headings; I will admit, I became so fed up with that editor, I removed the datespans altogether with, among a few others, this edit. Because the section Fourth studio album currently holds information from 2009, I have set the date from that point forward.

Now, I have an only slightly off-topic question: are you familiar with the "–present" phrase not being recommended in the body of an article? Long story short, I recall reading somewhere the "–present" was okay for infoboxes and summarizing tables, but in the body of an article, it should be replaced with another term; I saw an editor change it to "onward" once, and I followed suit. Huntster (talk · contribs) and ScottMHoward (talk · contribs) were kind enough to point out that my edits were possibly unreasoned (neither could find guidelines to support my changes). So, all I'm asking is, since I have you here on the subject of datespans, is "–present" okay in this case, and are you familiar with any possible guideline that I may have read (and can no longer find)? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I swear I read somewhere that "-present" was frowned upon in the body, but I can't for the life of me remember where. My personal preference (and I'm sure it's in the MoS somewhere) would be "onwards", but I might ask at WT:MOS or somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask at the MOS talk page, then. I'm very curious about this. I'll change it to "onward" since we both agree on that. Onward vs. Onwards (like Toward vs Towards) is, I believe, preferential (with consistency), so either way should work. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22.E2.80.93present.22_in_article_body. We'll see what turns up! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Lavigne went on to sell more than 30 million copies of her albums worldwide[11] and is currently one of the top-selling artists releasing albums in the United States, with over 10.25 million copies certified by the RIAA" is the kind of summary style you can write a lead section in, but it doesn't belong in the body like that.

Not sure I agree; I moved it down from the lead during a copyedit. If I move it back up to the lead, the information won't necessarily specifically be repeated anywhere else in the article. Can I therefore keep the citations with the phrase? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Y I moved two phrases up into the lead and kept the citations.

Fair enough. It's probably the best place for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, works for me too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I suggest you have a thorough read through the material between "music career" and the first subheader and give it a more thorough copyedit than I just did

Y Agreed 100%. Actually, it was kind of a pathetic one-paragraph section with a second paragraph as filler. I merged the first paragraph into Let Go, which is an obvious part of its history.

• • I've put a tag on "Lavigne is therefore not easily defined by only a few genres" because that sound like OR or synth to me unless it's directly attributable to a source

Y Removed through attrition. The whole list of genres was originally created to keep genre warriors at bay, but it's absolutely unnecessary. It's was nothing more than a list of sub-genres within alternative rock and pop genres that did nothing to advance the article or meaning.

• • I'm wondering about the necessity of the great long list of musical influences- could that be trimmed to maybe the few that have had the most affect on her style?

Y I actually questioned its purpose entirely. In 2004, she listed Janis Joplin and Courtney Love as her influences... but not why or how. In 2004, she listed her favorite albums. That doesn't really mean much on its own. I thought I would save the Joplin/Love bit, but it really doesn't fit anywhere in the Under My Skin section, and I don't want a widowed sentence floating around on its own. Someone suggested a Musical style section, and maybe then those can be fit in there, but that section would require a lot of research and writing to work well. For example, in interviews I've read, the media will call her punk, but Avril will deny it vehemently. Sort of a lose-lose situation, which is why I'm not up for tackling it. So: I've removed all genres and favorite albums.

• There'll be more to come in a minute, but I want to be in my admin account for the 00:00 UTC switchover on the Main Page. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's excellent progress (yes, I'm back in my regular account now, I just felt like editing without the admin buttons!) made very quickly and the article certainly looks a lot more professional from just a few relatively minor cosmetic changes. I'll get back to this at a more sociable hour, but it's gone 3am, so I'm retiring for the night. Good work, though, if we can keep at it, there shouldn't be more than a day or two of work left. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, just a few final points. I have concerns about the reliability of some of the sources, including:

• 12- overused for a crappy tabloid

Y (Now [13]) I'll trust this because the tabloid is British and you're probably more familiar with it than I am (I think you're in the UK). The Wiki article doesn't make it sound like a gossip/exploitive tabloid though, so rather than remove it entirely: I replaced two citations with a new reference and added a supporting citation to the quote. The Sunday Mirror quote (Lavigne stating she put a lot of work into getting where she had and now was going to drop out of school) adds an extra line, which I decided to keep. But if I drop the last sentence, the supporting citation covers the quote just fine. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• 27 (imdb)

Y (Now [29]) Replaced citation entirely with MTV article on that specific show. Showtime given at bottom of article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• 39

 Not done (Now [41]) I don't know the reliability of the website, Girl.com.au, but Gaynor Flynn is both the author and the interviewer. Her interviews have included an Over the Hedge interview with Bruce Willis and other interviews, like Ethan Hawke, Anne Hathaway, etc., and her name and interviews seem to show up quite a bit on Google. Though not presented in a fancy two-column format, I feel the need to defend her interview as legitimate, whether or not the website is (I'm not familiar with the website at all). In addition, removing Flynn's interview would result in the loss of an incredible amount of detail in the Film career section. I'm at a loss as to what to do. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• 48

Y (Now [50]) Replaced entirely with accurate {{cite journal}} for Maxim issue. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• 54- work should be The Guardian, publisher is Guardian Media Group

Y (Now [56]) Good catch, fixed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• 101

Y Removed entirely. Two citations were removed, one was a supporting citation that wasn't necessary otherwise, and a phrase was removed that used this reference ("dark" and "forbidding"), which isn't all that necessary either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Once those are addressed, I can't see any good reason not to promote this. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed in the UK and, frankly, I wouldn't trust The Mirror as far as I can throw it, but you're not so dependant on it now, so that's fine. Now that all the others have been addressed or fixed, all that's left to say is congratualtions. you just got yourself a GA! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comic in wrong section?

Why is the comic mentioned under philanthropy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.251.8 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Zylo1994 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually moved it to its appropriate chronological place in The Best Damn Thing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be under the public image section? Zylo1994 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why. Her public image is about that: her public image, what she looked like during her "three stages" of growing up. It made the most amount of sense to me. A graphic novel that stars Avril doesn't have anything to do with her image. The graphic novel paragraph is sort of a free-floating bit of text, I agree... it could probably fit nicely in the Entrepreneur section. Maybe it should go in there? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with it going in the entrepreneur section; I'm sure she gets some money from it but it isn't her own comic. I thought maybe it would have gone in the public image section because its her style and character used in the comic which surely suggests that she gives out a 'rockstar' impression. I mean thats just what I thought, obviously you know more about this than me. Zylo1994 (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about the entrepreneur section (if I have to spell that word one more time, I'm going to cry). Also, I don't know more than you lol. You're as valid an editor as I am. I'll admit, I've struggled with the public image section for a very long time, I think I've even posted about it in this talk page before (vaguely)... but working on this article, it became clear to me what its intention was: to show how her style has changed over the years. I found some good info on her Let Go years; Under My Skin was a tad more difficult, and I honestly didn't try very hard with the BDT styles. That's why the last two "eras" are sort of clumped together into one paragraph, while Let Go has its own. I think the section makes its point clearly. Somewhat off topic, my biggest goal in editing was trying to figure out how she got from Napanee to New York to a publishing deal. I'm still not 100% satisfied with it, but through that research, I found the info for all the other sections. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research here but I know that when she got 'discovered' she and her older brother moved to California (I think). I'm pretty sure the song 'Headset' is about the move. Anyway, I think her personal style from Let Go deserves its own paragraph because it established her from the rest of the pop singers when she first came out. Zylo1994 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that about "Headset", very cool! And interesting; I didn't read anywhere about her moving to Cali with her brother, but like I was hinting at, her transition into coming into the US wasn't as well-documented (or easy to find nowadays) as I expected. A funny thing, several articles publishing on Lavigne for the first time included pronunciation of her name. I would love to get some bios from the library and see what hidden info has been published. I agree about the Let Go paragraph, it's very important that she consciously chose to distinguish herself from the Britney crowd. Again, very interesting newspaper scans and interviews on the subject, and I've no doubt the whole Public image/style section can be expanded on greatly. I found an interview with Lavigne and Reid (Arista CEO who signed her) and he was such a kiss-ass to her in the interview; behind the scenes, he was a total douche to her, and she stuck it to him pretty good lol. For the sake of GA, I didn't want to deviate too much on topics like that, especially with potential BLP issues. I'm curious if Lavigne will ever have an authorized or auto biography. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I've come across several reliable sources with varying religions backgrounds listed for the Lavignes. This article says Catholic, but this site says Baptist. I searched the archives and found Talk:Avril_Lavigne/Archive_4#Religion, which mentions the exact same issue: do we know what religion she is? I suppose as a last recourse, if anyone is near a library (I am not), they can quickly pick up a bio and check. I may do a search in Google Books and Amazon LookInside a little later. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Catholic bit in the marriage section because I keep reading non-denominational in the references. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I've been sorta leaving this article alone (I can't keep up with the changes!! lol), but just glancing at the article, it looks like there's WAY too much information in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph is meant to summarize the article so that if you want to learn more than just the quick facts you can look below and see the details, but it seems like it contains way too many details making the reader not really care what's below, or just flat out not want to read the huge amount of text before you even get to the table of contents. I haven't thoroughly read through the section, but this is the impression I get just from LOOKING at it as a whole. Any way we can chop that down and put more details underneath? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just going with a stream of consciousness form of editing here. I have no doubt I overwhelmed it. Please... feel free to edit. According to WP:LEAD, it should be a "summary of the important aspects" and I'm sure right now half of it is not important. Consider it a 1st draft. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, btw, you said "put more details underneath"... there is nothing new in the lead. Remove or edit as you wish, but nothing needs to be moved down. It's already all in the body. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok! I kinda figured that's what ended up happening. Like I said, I haven't really read through it so I wasn't sure what really WAS in it, or what wasn't below (I certainly HOPE there wouldn't be any information in a lead that isn't in the body ;D). I might take a crack at it. Thanks for the quick reply! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay, now that my eyes are a bit rested, let me add that my understanding was that, for GA status, the Lead was supposed to summarize the entire article, which is what I did. Every section is mentioned in there. I mentioned this in the GA review (above) and I wouldn't mind getting feedback on this. Several GA articles that I've referenced (in the past, not for Avril Lavigne), like Nirvana's Nevermind have some of the (to me) most pathetic looking leads I've ever read. So I know I made a conscious effort to fill those four paragraphs up to brimming. You can read the lead and know a bit of Lavigne's early life, how she got into the biz, more or less, and what she's been doing since. Btw, the song and album chart rankings are original information from older revisions of the lead. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed a chunk of text about her fashion styles throughout the years. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fourth album in Discography

Lavigne appears in the new issue of Nylon magazine, but nowhere in the article does she say the album is expected to be released in September. In fact, it's written speculatively by the author (and with the word "tentatively") in the opening paragraph. There are also rumors of the album being released in July and August, as well as obsolete release dates of June and November of last year. That is my rationale, in case anyone is wondering, why I'll be removing any crystal edits of "Fourth studio album" (2010) to the discography until a more verifiable quote comes along. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't think anyone would argue with you on this. Personally I think that a September album release with a July single release is likely but who knows...after all it was going to be released in November '09... Zylo1994 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Canon... and other commercials?

There are several reliable articles on Lavigne's endorsement deal with Canon Canada Inc. There are tons of sites with the Canon Singapore (Canon Asia) commercial and behind-the-scenes pix, so it's obviously notable. But I can't for the life of me find any otherwise-reliable sources that specifically talks about her deal and when it was made. And Google's news archives has failed me for the first time :( So any ideas? Also, should her T-Mobile and ProActive commercials be mentioned? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely forgot about these o_o but yeah I think they need to be listed. I'll see if I can find some sort of news article on it... Zylo1994 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the failed verification tag was holding up the GA. I honestly tried my hardest to locate a source for the Canon Singapore information and all I found were potentially links to copyvio movie streams of the commercial, but no information about signing a contract, when, etc. So this information has been removed. A section about her commercials can be added in the future, but this article has been in GA hell for too long. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical style

I thought I'd make this into a new section. From the GA discussion:

Hey, I just crossed this page and I would say this article totally lacks a Musical Style section. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Part of her Music career section goes into her influences, but I suppose this information, along with parts of her Personal image (maybe?) could be combined to start a Musical style section. I don't think this section is required by any means for a GA, which is why I'm moving the discussion out here, but it's a good suggestion of its own. Any thoughts on this? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead to the Music career section ends with a listing the styles she's been labelled by a handful of sources. A start would be to elaborate on the labels and see what the sources say about her style and artistry in general. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Feel free to start it if you'd like. I need to push forward with a couple other articles before I'll return to Avril. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe say something about her songwriting? Let Go and The Best Damn Thing both have information on people questioning her songwriting ability. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. She stresses often that she's always written her own music, but this was one of the several arguments she'd had with Arista. Under My Skin is her breaking away from The Matrix (although I think Lavigne had a major hand in writing the Let Go songs as well?). Best Damn Thing though was confusing, I don't know if she helped write the songs or not. In the DVD documentary that came with the deluxe edition, she was shown writing the melody lines and improvising lyrics/writing lyrics. My copy is in storage, but I'm sure it's on YouTube or somewhere. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know 100% that she always has some contribution to her songs. How much she actually does has been questioned. On the Let Go article, The Matrix apparently said that she didn't do much but Lavigne herself said she did. On TBDT article her friend Chantal Krevia...(you know who I mean) said that Lavigne was basically a crap songwriter. If we do go deeper into her musical style, do we have to acknowledge the whole 'I'm punk rawk!!!' thing? I would rather stay away from this because a lot of it is hearsay...did she call herself punk...was it just the media...? I still don't really understand it. Zylo1994 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I threw in a quote a short while ago where she says she's not punk. There're definitely influences from the media, though. They'll say whatever they want, and if the radio gets wind of it and spreads it, then suddenly it's "fact", whatever it is. It'll be interesting to see what her fourth will sound like, almost entirely of her own work. I'm sure there'll be "help" from Whibley, Taubenfeld, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it will be interesting finding some genres for her new album. 'Alice' was a pretty tricky song to give genres to but I'm guessing the general theme will be pop rock, alternative rock, softrock, pop. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Audio recording

Not sure what to do about the audio recording of this article. It's dated 16 May, but I compared that version with the current one, and the least affected sections are Let Go and Philanthropy. A discussion on the audio recording talk page resulted in an open-ended answer: so what do others here think? Should the audio recording be removed, or should I contact the voice contributor and tell him he may need to re-record the article again, preferably once the article reaches GA status? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-record it and if that isn't possible then remove it completely. It is a nice feature but I just think it's going to be hard to always keep it up to date with the article. Zylo1994 (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just that the article went under so much change in so little time, that's all. I'll contact the voice artist. - Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

But surely the article is always going to have small changes here and there? How many times can the audio be updated? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how often the voice guy wants to re-record it. On the WT:SPOKEN discussion, it sounds like the audio doesn't necessarily need to be removed unless it's full of factual inaccuracies. I'll still let the recordist know there's a new version of the article, but I'm waiting for the GA pass/fail before I do that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I say that the current recording should remain. It may not reflect the current version of the article, but as Zylo said, there's always going to be changes to a wiki article. The recording has a disclaimer (if you can call it that) stating at what date the recording was made so I see no reason why it can't remain. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, consensus is keep, I wasn't really sure. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch list pls

{{Portal|Avril Lavigne}} Pls add the new Portal:Avril Lavigne to your watch list. Moxy (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

Busywork that anyone can help with; it's gotta be done! Otherwise, it's last on my list to do. Feel free to strike-through and sign by the list, if anyone volunteers :D

 Done:1. Go through the References section on the article namespace; if you don't see authors or dates, then click through to the article and see if you can't locate the information (authors can be hidden beneath pictures or on sidebars). No need to update the accessdate parameters.  Done:2. Go through References edit window and replace all "publisher=WEBSITE" parameters with "work=WEBSITE". Note:

• The work= parameter automatically italicizes, so you have to think backwards. Any websites that are not published journals need to have the italics canceled out by adding '' marks on either side of the website.
• Websites are supposed to go in the work= parameter. Publisher parameters are for actual publishers. For example: work=US Weekly | parameter=Wenner Media LLC. ("US Weekly" will automatically italicize.)
• Remove irrelevant info from the work= parameter. Like "www.ew.com" should be changed to EW.com (anti-italicized) or Entertainment Weekly.

 Done:3. Overlinks throughout the entire article and in the References section... if you see 'em, get rid of 'em! Make sure the first occurrence is linked.  Done:4. Contractions within the actual article (not in quotes), like can't, wasn't, if you see any. WP:CONTRACTIONS

 Done:5. Check for copyvio {{YouTube}} refs, replace as needed.

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No contractions at the moment so I'll give that a tick but I'll still keep my eyes open for them. Just so I know...websites are WORK not PUBLISHER? Actual sites SHOULD NOT be italicized but names of companies (ie. US Weekly) SHOULD? Just so I know - I want to do more I feel like I'm not doing enough. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing, and I've been filling out the {{cite web}} templates incorrectly for a year. To clarify: Websites are placed in the work parameter. Websites that are published journals (US Weekly, Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Maxim, Inked, etc etc etc) are italicized. Companies are not italicized. Don't even worry about the companies unless HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) requests them. For a charts example I recently did: work=FinnishCharts.com|publisher=Hung Medien LLC (or similar).

I held a discussion here: Template_talk:Cite_web#.22Work.22_vs_.22Publisher.22_parameters, because according to the template, websites are placed under the work parameter. But because the work parameter italicizes automatically, I figured I'd just put websites under the publisher parameter, I mean what's the difference, right? Turns out, there is a difference and people take notice of it. Anyway, long story short: websites are work, if they're not published, then you have to unitalicize them. Annoying, but what can you do. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so I know for the future, do reference parameters have to be in a certain order? I.e. does 'date' have to come before 'work' or does 'publisher' have to come after 'accessdate'? Zylo1994 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, templates can technically be in any order. It's easiest to copy/paste from the template's project page. But if you're using {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, or {{cite journal}}, there's actually a fill-in-the-blank form that you can use that makes life super easy. Plus, it can retrieve most of the information for you. Click on "My Preferences" at the top of your page, click on "Gadgets" tab near the top, and check "refTools". A "cite" button will now appear at the top of your edit window. Try it, it's very nice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing, which is vain on my part. I spent a lot of time in those references, and I have to admit, when they are out of order, it's actually highly time-consuming for me, because instead of scanning for missing info, I had to actually stop and really hunt through the template. It's difficult to explain, but I definitely prefer it when references are in order. Lavigne's article actually didn't have that big of a problem; other articles are a disaster, and it really bogs down the whole efficiency thing about keeping references clean and up-to-date if they're haphazardly filled out. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 11:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I just added ref 109. It was on the MTV website so I didn't italicize it...is that right? Sorry to be a pain but if you could check ref 109 just so I know I'm doing the right thing. Thanks. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zylo1994, my apologies, I never saw your comment till now. Which reference was it (can you give me a detail that isn't a ref #, they've changed I believe). I've been having a discussion on the {{cite web}} template talk page and I think that website may actually be italicized after all. But we'll see, it's been confusing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it I forgot which one it was lol. I changed Let Go and UMS to the same reflist as Avril Lavigne...I hope I did that right? Zylo1994 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, you changed them to list-defined references (WP:LDR). Looks good! I really think it's a fantastic tool. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Should her guest judging on American Idol be listed in the filmography table? Zylo1994 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Model?

In the occupation section of the infobox, it lists Avril Lavigne as a model. I'm sure she wears her own clothing line in photoshoots but does that really make her a model? Zylo1994 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Yeah, unless she's done it professionally (and more than just once or twice) it shouldn't be listed in the infobox. It's fine to list stuff like that in the actual article, but the infobox is for generalizing and modelling, as far as I know, is not one of her major occupations. I say remove =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I dont think its even needed in the lead(not that it is)...its just a side project  !Moxy (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Removed ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

References are now in column format

Disregard

 – edits reverted according to consensus –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The {{columns-list}} template was recently added to References with the explanation in the edit summary being that now the columns would work in Internet Explorer. Here is the code as it stands now:

{{columns-list|3|
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em|refs=

My understanding was that the colwidth=30em code in the {{Reflist}} template split the section into two or three columns for browsers automatically (?), but the {{columns-list}} template splits it into three columns always, and, in fact, the documentation for this template says it still won't work for IE, though I don't have the browser so I can't check. I'm not bothered by the three column references in the slightest, but what I'm wondering is if the {{columns-list}} template is really needed—for the record, I started using it on other articles as well as it really helps for long ref sections—, and if people want it to stay, can we remove the colwidth=30em code, which seems slightly redundant now? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre

POP PUNK!? Are you crazy? Avril Lavigne is Power Pop, Teen Pop, Pop Rock, anything but Pop Punk! Who wrote that she's pop punk obviously knows nothing about music!--188.26.49.213 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We had many sources that called her pop punk. Lavigne herself called her music pop punk. She has been nicknamed the Pop Punk Princess. She has singles that have sources that call them pop punk.

I personally wouldn't call her pop punk and would instead call her punk-pop but that is getting picky and splitting hairs. My point is that if we have sources then it stays. We also had a vote reached a consensus on her genres not too long ago (you can find it somewhere in the archive).Zylo1994 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said so far, but remember that Wikipedia does not rely on votes, but on consensus. Any version of an article can be changed at any time by any person. If that information is not contested, a consensus is reached, regardless of previous voting by a select few members. =D But I agree with Zylo. If it's cited, leave it. If you believe there is a better suited genre to list, be bold and add it to the list, but don't replace other reliable sources. Just make sure you have a source of your own when you add it! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with all the above, and I think Zylo1994 meant to say "!vote", as it was done by consensus. Genres can be chosen by consensus, but they must also be verifiable, come from a reliable source, and they can't be a reader's WP:OPINION. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I thought consensus was the same thing as a vote. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every source should be trusted! Punk Rock is a complicated genre, It's not only about music! And Avril even admitted that she's not punk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYfZ9o_UI2E Here it is. "I'm not punk, my music is so not punk.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revilal90 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Look: here says that Avril is teen pop. On Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hjfqxql0ldae --Revilal90 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and we also had sources for rock, alternative rock, pop, alternative pop, post-grunge and powerpop. The infobox should simply be a brief explanation of her genres. In my opinion, pop rock and pop punk represent Avril Lavigne's music, her musical influences and her own style. I understand that she may not bring much credibility to a music genre that you are a fan of but I can't see it changing just because you don't like it. The article used to have a section where all of Lavigne's genres and influences were listed but it was removed: maybe you could suggest it's brought back so that all of her genres are looked into further? I'm not sure if this would upset its GA status but I think a small section could be created for her genres, influences and her songwriting ability (which has often been questioned). Zylo1994 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had saved the information you're talking about (and related references) elsewhere, and here it is below:

Archived genre paragraph and references

Several bands and musicians have inspired Lavigne throughout her career. Lavigne's influences also included Courtney Love, Janis Joplin, and she named Radiohead's album The Bends as one of her favorites. In a short list compiled by Rolling Stone in 2003, Lavigne cited other examples of her favorite albums, which included Goo Goo Dolls's Gutterflower, System of a Down's Toxicity, Alanis Morrisette's Under Rug Swept, Coldplay's A Rush of Blood to the Head, and Dillinger Four's Situationist Comedy. The media has labeled her songs with a variety of genres, including rock, pop rock, alternative rock, pop, pop punk, alternative pop, post-grunge, teen pop, and powerpop.

The removal of this information was suggested and explained during the GA process. The list of genres so blanketed nearly every sub-genre of pop rock that it became non-encyclopedic. It'd be akin to saying Metallica plays rock, hard rock, metal, heavy metal, thrash, speed thrash, country, country rock, acoustic rock... it just began to get out of hand; if every news source's opinion of Lavigne's (or any band's) genre were listed, the paragraph would probably be twice as long, and it's not needed. However, I do think Avril's denial of the punk genre is important to note, and I don't think it's mentioned in the article. (Lavigne is quoted as saying she's not punk, but this is in relation to her not being an "angry girl" and a rebel.) I would still argue against re-including the above paragraph (or variation thereof) into the article, but I wouldn't be against changing the infobox genres. If anything, I would prefer the removal of "pop punk" as well, and leave it as pop rock, since that in itself would cover her three albums entirely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So if Keraunoscopia and Revilal90 both do not want pop punk in the infobox, and I myself don't really mind either way, should we not simply remove it (I know Scott doesn't like to get involved with genres)? We could reach another consensus (am I using that right?) and find another genre. Maybe we could have pop and rock as her genres, like her albums are? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the removal of the pop punk genre at all, but I don't think adding rock will help; someone else will undoubtedly come along questioning that genre. I'd say pop rock covers it pretty well. As for consensus, you're right; as of right now, the consensus is to remove pop punk and leave pop rock in the infobox. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Genre arbitrary break

Okay tell me if I'm making too much of a fuss over this but I don't think that JUST pop rock describes her music very well. Since pop punk was a bit much (and a little bit controversial) what about powerpop? It fits in with the pop rock, pop punk type genres and is listed as a genre on 3 of her singles (the same number as pop punk). Plus, the majority of her singles and all her albums have more than just one genre in their infobox, I thought maybe it would make sense to do it for this one as well to add more insight into her music? Unlike pop punk and rock, I think powerpop is unlikely to attract problems from other editters too. So what does everybody think of having pop rock and powerpop as the two genres in the infobox?Zylo1994 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop rock simply covers everything she does. Pop rock is the culmination of pop and rock, so really it is two genres, just given its own name. Pop rock covers power pop, which, if you look at its page, stems from pop rock. I think as it is, the one genre works well; there doesn't need to be more than one listed. Remember, the reason for boiling down the genres to only two (in the first place) was because people kept adding/removing genres to the list. Already, someone swung by complaining about pop punk. On the other hand, if you think it's time to re-add some genres, then perhaps a select few should be chosen yet again, only this time we'll avoid the word "punk" lol. For example (looking at the list in the archived section above), pop rock, power pop, and alternative rock. Let's keep "power pop" as two words, though, since the main article seems to prefer that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we should just keep it as pop rock then. I don't want to make a massive fuss because it will probably bring back the constant genre changing >_< Pop rock, power pop and alternative rock all sound good but do you think it will just make a cluttered infobox and cause arguements? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think genres will clutter up the infobox, but since her genres are so similar to each other, I never thought having 8 or 12 of them (or however many) listed in the infobox was very efficient. We can add genres if you'd like, and if it starts attracting genre flies, than we can go back to having only one genre for a while. The AL article has been surprisingly stable (I didn't expect this), so let's give it a whirl. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Should I wait for other input or just go ahead and add the genres? We could add them now and then if anybody has a problem they're easily removed. Zylo1994 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone else is going to chime in. May as well add them. It'll be interesting to see what happens. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop punk

She doesn't say she has a power pop style!

Official info, say pop-punk .... even herself (her making the best damn thing she cites songs with punk inclinations, where travis and deryck worked), like this quote she did with the Rock One Magazine Q16: But your records have always had dark songs and some softers ...

"You are absolutely right, my records were like that, but not this one. Before it had a ballad song, a mid-tempo song and a "punky poppy rocky song"
The link --->http://avril-source.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1171&pos=6

Also look the official myspace http://www.myspace.com/avrillavigne where the style are Pop/Pop Punk... and this quotes

• The Canadian-born punk-pop dynamo found that her favorite songs to play were the faster
  
• The Best Damn Thing is brimming with gutsy guitar riffs, instantaneously catchy sing-along party-starting choruses, power pop punk, and rebellious rock ’n’ roll attitude.
  

• and a chanted girl-group-style chorus with a punk rock twist'
  

Her official purevolume page confirms it! Genres: Pop Punk / Rock ---> http://www.purevolume.com/avrillavigneofficial

The info of rockdetector (musicmight) gives pop punk as one of the music styles of avril lavigne --->http://www.musicmight.com/artist/canada/ontario/belleville/avril+lavigne

Allmusic Guide ----> http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gpfuxzy5ldhe

So what's the problem to keep pop-punk style away ? if official sources such as myspace give it... and she is clear that have pop-punk influences. It's kind of selfish dont add it, just beacuse there are people doesn't think that... at that doesn't mean that have to be wrong. so please add it =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.108.247 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In other hand, some of her abbey dawn t-shirts have her picture and written on it Pop punk princess ... if she designed it, is because she is clear of that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.108.247 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some pretty good argument there! Her MySpace doesn't count because it's both WP:PRIMARY and general discussions on genres have never favored a band's self-labeled genre. I could probably dig those conversations up if I need to. Allmusic itself, though considered reliable for reviews and band summaries, is a touchy subject in terms of genre reliability, since they have a habit of blanketing an artist with every sub-genre possible. Discussions have also taken place on Allmusic. PureVolume is a social networking site, not unlike MySpace; I can't tell if the AL page is run by a fan or by AL. Either way, I would not consider it reliable. "Punky poppy rocky" is directed at a single song, and again, it's a self-label, and it's also not a genre, she's merely describing the sound of that song. Saying a song is "thrashy" does not make it "thrash". However, I think MusicMight is acceptable as a reliable source, not really sure. But really, the best way to find a good genre is to find it written up in an article or an interview (but the author has to say the genre, not the artist). Finally, this wasn't unexpected. Pop punk was removed because someone was really vocal about it not being there. Perhaps it should be re-included? Otherwise, the other option was to leave the genre as pop rock and nothing else, but I personally don't mind a few sub-genres being squeezed in there. I have to give you (IP) kudos though for researching and finding sources. Not many people do that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I think the sources calling her the Pop punk Princess are referring more to her personal style rather than her music. As I've said before I think punk-pop is much more appropriate than pop punk (examples of pop punk being Paramore, You Me At Six etc.) as the P!nk article has punk-pop listed as one of her genres too. Powerpop has been with her throughout all three albums whereas pop punk has only really been highlighted in TBDT. I'm against adding pop punk - I think it will cause much more disagreement than Powerpop and will start up unhelpful editting again. Zylo1994 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving sources

If anyone is looking for something to do with this article, to help keep the GA status for as long as possible, sources should be archived to avoid linkrot and verifiability issues. I've already begun the process on another article, so I won't get to AL for a while. The steps go like this:

1. Open the References section
2. Open WebCite in a new browser window/tab; click on the archive tab at the top (direct link)
3. Copy the URL from the first non-archived reference in the Reference section and paste it into the "URL to Archive" field
4. Input your email address (I use a for-Wikipedia email address that I created) in the "citing author" field
5. Click Submit
6. When the page has been archived, copy the (longer) URL (I usually click on it to check that it worked)
7. Add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters to the reference (for consistency, place them directly before |accessdate) and paste the archive URL in the archiveurl parameter. Keep the archive date format in Canadian format: DD-MM-YYYY

Losing references means losing valuable information from the article. Note: Do not archive references that are multiple pages in length ("click here for page 2")—unless you want to!—because these references will need to be broken into one URL per page, and I will gladly do this since I'll have to re-locate the cited info on which page and create a new {{cite web}} template and archiveURL for each page. (This was a lesson I learned on another article I worked on.) Archiving one reference a day will help immensely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I will make you a deal ..i will do half here if you do have here -->Canada...lets make to emails!!:) Moxy (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, I don't think I understand. I don't mean to dissuade your logic, but if I were to do any at all, it'd be on the AL page, since that's where my efforts would be best used. However, I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia anymore. So I haven't been able to complete this task on other pages either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL :) ... just trying to spread it all out ....there has to be a way of doing more then one at a time ..i mean 10 to 20 on a single screen.

I was able to do dozens at a time by using several tabs and browser windows. Wasn't too much of a problem. It's just time consuming work. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, audio, video, and journal sources can't be archived obviously, and unfortunately Flash-based websites (Billboard.com) can't always be archived. And as of my writing, WebCite is archiving, but checking the archive links isn't working (or it's being really slow). Ah well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

power pop-punk

what about to add a power pop and pop punk mix to 'power pop-punk' . it sounds close to her. also there are the poppunk influence on the guitar riffs and drums in songs like he wasnt, sk8er boi, take it, i always get what i want, freak out, one of those girls, i can do better, everythng back but you, contagious, the best damn thing, runaway, alone for example... and covers like basketcase, all the small things, american idiot, into deep... there is more poppunk sources than powerpop, have to find it? how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.75.138.244 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We can't make up genres, they have to be sourced, and basically all the above-discussed genres have been sourced. We can add pop punk if people would like. So far two IPs have questioned "power pop", so should that one be removed? Or kept as well? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be added pop-punk, there is various sources (evading the pop-punk princess stuff) ... what's teh disagree with it? that can be a problem? I don't think so, well I´ll be waiting for someone who can add pop-punk as some of us are in the same (150.185.157.135 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)).

 Done – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Avril lavigne forbidden rose poster.jpg

Rationale for my recent edit: this image should not be included in the article, in accordance with fair use requirements. As depicted on the fair use description "Purpose of Use": "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." The image does not make a significant contribution, and the fragrance is conveyed practically by words alone. The image is fair use for the article on the fragrance, but does not meet fair use for the AL article. It was added by Esteban hallo (talk · contribs) after GA status was awarded, but the GAN would've required the image be removed. I'd meant to remove it at the time and got caught up with other things. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation on why it does not meet fair use requirements for this article. I saw that it was removed for "fair use" but there was no other explanation why, so I thought that to mean it was missing it's Fair Use Rationale for this particular article, which I added. I just figured if it was some technical thing, I'd fix the technical aspects of it. But if it fails fair use, it fails! Image removed! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. In responding to my query on your talk page, I found a more precise reason why it shouldn't be used; I may as well throw it up on this discussion as well. From WP:NFC#UUI, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)", and there was never any reason for a description of the image anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New main picture?

I don't how we go about this so I'll just say it: can we change the main picture in the infobox? The current picture makes her look stoned and I figured with a new album out soon change would be welcomed?

• I thought maybe this one? Of course cut the other woman out of it.
• Or this one. (Assuming Lavigne herself would be the main focus when in the infobox).
• Or this one.

I don't know if I'm just causing unnecesary fuss but I've never really liked the picture we have now and I wondered what everybody else thinks. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was searching for a new picture of her a few months ago. Despite her looking like she just stepped out of a sweat lodge, the current image is probably one of the best ones, simply because it shows her face. Your first picture is a 3/4 profile, but isn't so different from the current infobox pic except that you can't see her face as well. The second picture is lousy, only because it's so damned tiny! I followed through to the Flickr link and that is the largest size the author uploaded. Such a shame. The second picture, cropped, would look great in the body of the article (actually I think it'd be ok for infobox use as well, but her face is kind of hidden by the mic). The third one isn't too bad, but again, you can't see her face, and she's cute looking enough, but kind of modeling/posing. Is that bad? And this Robin Wong photographer is nice enough to release his images under CC-BY, but he uploads the tiniest version he can. Kind of frustrating. (I've seen a few of his other images on Wikipedia, and they're all much larger.) I'm all for swapping images, though, the current one is getting old to look at, so if I had to cast a vote, I'd say the third one (the second one is good, but just too tiny). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting out of the 3 listed above (A, B, and C, respectively) and the current one (D), I'd have to vote D. I'm all for a new picture to post in the infobox, but out of those 4, I think the one we have shows the most of her face, which is best for a picture used in a box identifying the person. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello yall...portal guy here..all the fair pics are at -->commons:Category:Avril Lavigne as i am sure you know..I am going to give one of wikis photo guys a ring let him know that a good pic is needed here (referring to User:Leahtwosaints)...Since this is a GA article i believe a GA level type pic is needed I will also look for some.Moxy (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody- Moxy invited me here, as I spend as much time searching & providing elusive photos of musicians as I do editing. I looked at the candidates that Zylo1994 listed above. The current infobox photo is currently best, but since you don't like it, I'll begin hunting. I think |option A and |option C could be used in the text but the 2nd one is taken from too far away. Remember to choose the pics that best reflect what is being said in the text as closely as possible, rather than looking for "cute", and not to overwhelm the article with too many photos. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "cute" bit was me trying to be—well—cute. But Leahtwosaints, I'm looking forward to what you find and we all appreciate your help! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:R

I've been repairing references lately and on some articles I've noticed that instead of using the <ref name="reference" /> reference calls, it will use a {{r|reference}} call. This seems to clear up the editing space of the article even more in addition to using WP:LDR, especially where listing multiple references. Without going into too much detail, this means that:

<ref name="Reference 1" /><ref name="Reference 2" /><ref name="Reference 3" />

can simply become:

{{r|Reference 1|Reference 2|Reference 3}}

This isn't significantly less space, but it leaves MUCH less room for coding errors (quotations, end tags, etc).

Any objections to me taking the time to implement this on (all?) the Avril Lavigne articles? It's a bit of a major change, so I figured I'd ask some opinion first. I tested it out on the We Are the Fallen articles and it seems to work well. Thoughts? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Great find. I can't see any disadvantage to the {{r}} template at all; in fact, it looks fairly well thought out. At its most basic, it's cleaner and more precise than the cumbersome <ref name="blah"/> code. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the better things I like about it is that a VERY common error is that the <ref name="Blah" /> vs. <ref name=Blah /> error of missing quotes (wiki DOES differentiate between how you call it) is no longer a problem. Whether you define the ref as "Blah" or just Blah, the {{r|Blah}} will pick it up either way! It looks like I found myself a new project for the week... I might just as well make all the pages WP:LDR compliant while I'm at it. I know there are many lacking it. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, {{R}} makes for a great side-project. I'll convert other low-traffic articles to it on my downtime. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is LDR that ref listing thing we put on Alice, Let Go, UMS and AL? I kept meaning to change TBDT to it as well but I had tons of school stuff. Anyway, if you do need help converting to LDR any more articles I'd be more than happy to help. I need something to keep me busy this summer! Zylo1994 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means, any help is wonderfully appreciated. I'm sure that if you don't get to it, I'll be roaming around doing it because I like projects like this. I'm a programmer who's got nothing to program, so wikipedia is the next best thing! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've done Let Go and I'll get started on UMS. Finished UMS. Zylo1994 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Avril Lavigne (by Scott)
• Avril Lavigne discography (by Scott)
  • Let Go (by Zylo)
    • Complicated (by Scott)
    • Sk8er Boi (by Scott)
    • I'm With You (by Scott)
    • Losing Grip (by Scott)
  • Under My Skin (by Zylo)
    • Don't Tell Me (by Scott)
    • My Happy Ending (by Scott)
    • Nobody's Home (by Scott)
    • He Wasn't (by Scott)
  • The Best Damn Thing (by Scott)
    • Girlfriend (by Scott)
    • When You're Gone (by Scott)
    • Hot (by Scott)
    • The Best Damn Thing (by Scott)

We forgot Keep Holding OnY and AliceY. I'll do Keep Holding On if you'll do Alice *taking the easy option* =D Zylo1994 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that on my list. I must not have them listed readily in my userpage quicklinks. Anyway, Alice was actually the easier of the 2 because it was already in LDR format. Keep Holding On wasn't, so I had to convert that, too. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne Essential Mixes

On 20 September 2010 a new CD is being released full of Avril Lavigne remixes and acoustic versions of songs. I was going to slip it into the Fourth album section but the only sources I can find for it are Amazon and Play.com. ie. this and I'm not sure if they're considered credible. I'm assuming we're going to need to give this it's own article too? I was going to start it but I have absolutely no idea how to upload a picture o_o Zylo1994 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just realised that an article has already been made...*facepalm* Anyway, should it still be included in the Fourth album section even with play.com as a reference? Zylo1994 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of an arcane album; you wouldn't know it existed unless you visited forums. There's hardly any info on it at all, her website says nothing, and Amazon US imports it from Amazon UK. However, I noticed Kylie Minogue has an Essential Mixes: 12 Inch Masters Series remix album as well, though it's not mentioned either on her article or in her discography. Anyway... play.com and Amazon.com aren't reliable enough sources in keeping with GA status, so maybe look for some news site? I read somewhere MTV mentioned the album and gave out the track list, and that would be great to have. Then it can be mentioned in the fourth album section. But don't add the record to this article's discography list; it can be added in a Remix section of her actual discography, though. That's my recommendation, at any rate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks totally "unofficial" to me... It's not released by RCA, her current record company (it's through SONY UK), and like Z says, it's not really mentioned anywhere. The article itself doesn't really have any references in it. I say we remove all instances of it until the album actually becomes notable in some way after its release. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's like on the cusp of notability; such a strange album. The album's article cites only one reference, SonyCMG.com, who's owned by Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd. So definitely UK-heavy stuff going on here. To be absolutely honest, I have no opinion on the matter. I can't make head or tail if the album is really hers or some strange contract loophole or fulfillment thing, so I'm okay with waiting until it's been released as well. However, it brings to mind the Stone Temple Pilots album Buy This, which was created and released only for American Best Buy stores. Just a really weird scenario. And like the Buy This album, maybe the Essential Mixes article should be deleted entirely and the album mentioned in the AL article. No track listing, no album cover, not enough notability for its own article. That's what happened with Buy This. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this album has been removed from the SonyCMG website (now there are NO references in the article that show the album exists). The only evidence there ever was (or is) going to be an album is on amazon.co.uk (or imported on amazon.com). Kylie's Essential Mixes still remains on the site however. I'm definitely for removing everything about this album now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Zero notability now. Kill it. AfD or CSD or whatever it takes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current AfD discussion. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The current AfD discussion has recently brought about discussions of removing Avril Lavigne's EPs as well. If you have any opinion on the topic, please see the link above. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Innecesary information

The section of tattoos is innecesary and dork. BRAMCPPF (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

AL in studio with Alex Da Kid

I was just wondering if this was a reliable enough source? She's in the studio with Alex Da Kid but the only place it has been mentioned is her Twitter. I'm always worried about adding new info to the article because I'm never sure what's considered reliable and what isn't and I don't want to hurt the GA status. Can we add info from her Twitter without sourcing it as it's included in the article anyway? Zylo1994 (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like it, to me. It looked promising at first, but a gmail contact e-mail, misspelling "Deryck Whilby", and the "does anyone else think..." points to an unprofessional blog. If we could track down the sources that person used (other than twitter) to write their blog, that'd be nice. But I don't really consider that to be a reliable source--though I've seen some pretty crazy things used as sources on Wikipedia in the past. lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we not use an individual tweet url as a source? It comes straight from Avril Lavigne herself so surely it makes it more reliable?Zylo1994 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just researched a little more as to what qualifies as a reliable source and found this. It says that any websites such as blogs, and specifically tweets, are "largely not acceptable" unless it's been published by other third-party sources. But there's a "however": such tweets CAN be used as long as it about themselves and "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". So does this qualify? I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. I personally stay completely away from ALL social media, blogs, official websites, etc of the subject of the article when finding sources. But I've seen them used in numerous places, and the example above must be just one of several loopholes in Wikipedia policy. I'm going to stand neutral on this topic. Use your own judgement on if it should be included or not. ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Zylo, your original source is a blog and is not reliable for citing... however, you noticed that the blog was merely taking its information from Avril Lavigne's tweet. The rest of the blog is conjecture made by the author, so none of it is really usable. The tweet is usable, but with a caveat. But even though self-made tweets/forum posts are actually acceptable in accordance with WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELFPUBLISH (confusing) still highly recommends caution using such sources, especially for BLP articles, and most importantly, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (I'm of a similar mind to Scott: I would prefer to use these types of sources as a last resort, but I wouldn't discount them entirely.) Therefore, taking the advice of SELFPUBLISH, what you want to find is a reliable third party source that "forwards" the information to its readers, but it can't be a blog. So I went to Google News and did a keyword search for "Avril Lavigne Alex da Kid" and turned up two results: an outright blog (unusable), and a news blog, which is usable, in accordance with WP:NEWSBLOG: "these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Courtney Hart's article is a Canadian news source and is most likely reliable. The article itself seems perfect for your needs: it re-posts the tweet, it re-posts the image. I would use the {{cite web}} template and that article and you're home free. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay great thanks. I never really know what is notable enough to be included in the fourth album section but I suppose a lot of it can be used for the fourth album article whenever its released. Plus, I'm always paranoid that I'll add something and it will suddenly destroy the entire article o_o Zylo1994 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, asking here is a great way if you're unsure. And figuring out what sources are reliable and what aren't can range from the obvious to the difficult-to-discern. (It took me about five minutes of work to decide the Kingston Herald link above was reliable enough... I couldn't even be sure at first.) I agree with you completely on the point you made: details, like Alex da Kid working on the album, are definitely meant for the fourth album article; I would remove this type of info from the AL article's fourth album section in the future, only because it's not really important to the overall summary of the album. But if you add it now, it will help us remember which information to move to the new article later. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I added the source - because the website is also a paper (I'm assuming by its name) it should be |work=Kingston Herald| right? Zylo1994 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, shouldn't it be {{cite news}} instead, since it's the website of a news source? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Zylo: I actually don't know if it's a paper or not. This is why I struggled with whether or not the website was reliable. There is no publisher information on its site, and I couldn't find any information on it, Wikipedia, Google, etc. Where the Calgary Herald is definitely a printed journal, the Kingston Herald I guess is just an online news source. Work=Kingston Herald is correct. Publisher= is left blank. But read my response to Scott below.

Scott: I'm really lousy at this. {{Cite web}} is transparent and easy, so I always use it. {{Cite news}} is probably the more correct template. I should have referred Zylo to this template instead. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay well I've changed it to {{cite news}} now so at least if its wrong we can just hit the 'Undo' button! Zylo1994 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a new video posted on Bandaids, so I went in to add it as a supporting citation and ended up rewriting most of the new info—I hope that was okay! I added a quote just to keep the section "attractive" until we can get some new pictures in there (whenever she starts touring again), and I used her one and only forum post as a source. I'll cite Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, WP:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, and of course WP:SELFPUB as reason enough for citing a forum post, though I backed it up with a secondary source anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)